The 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference: Cop21
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and overview COP21 (1) is the latest in the annual Conference of Parties, which began in Berlin in 1995, with a main aim to review the implementation of the Convention--the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2) (UNFCCC)--which entered into force on the 21 March 1994. The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit of 1992, and sets out an overall framework intended to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GFIGs) so to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The UNFCCC membership is now practically universal and, as of December 2015, consists of 197 parties. Some of the more significant conferences (and their associated actions) include COP3 (Kyoto Protocol adopted), COP 11 (Montreal Action Plan agreed), COP 15 in Copenhagen (agreement not achieved to implement the Kyoto Protocol) and COP 17 in Durban (Green Climate Fund agreed). COP21 stands out from all previous conferences (1), in that it aimed to limit the rise in global temperatures to well below 2 [degrees]C above pre-industrial levels (with the background target being 1.5 [degrees]C), by establishing a universal agreement on climate, among all the nations of the world, that is legally binding. The negotiations at COP21 led to the Paris Agreement3 being adopted on 12 December 2015, which governs measures for climate change reduction from 2020, and concluded the work of the Durban platform, which was set out as part of the activities of COP 17. However, it is required (3) that 55 countries which produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 1) ratify the Agreement, in order for it to enter into force and become fully binding. The Agreement must be signed in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, by these parties, who must also assimilate it, as appropriate, within their own legal systems, via ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. However, it is speculated that some parties, particularly the United States, may not agree to do so. Indeed, although it is a requirement that each country that ratifies the agreement must set a target for its reduction in emissions, there is no compulsory amount for this (4). Moreover, there is to be no means to compel the setting of a target by a specific date nor penalty measures imposed should a set target not be met (4) (in contrast with the more specific and draconian Kyoto Protocol). Any noncompliant countries will merely be named and shamed, which has contributed to severe criticism of the whole enterprise, e.g. by such eminent figures as James Hansen, who is quoted (5) as saying: [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] a fraud really, a fake. just bullshit for them to say: 'We'll have a 2 [degrees]C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned. At COP21, particular focus has been given to two primary issues: namely, whether the critical temperature limit should be set at 1.5 [degrees]C or 2 [degrees]C above preindustrial levels; and the appropriate level of funding that should be awarded by developed nations to developing countries that are potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise, and to expectedly more severe weather events (5). In Hansen's view, all of this carries little weight without taxes for greenhouse gas emissions being imposed equally and globally, being of the belief that this is the only strategy that can drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the relatively rapid rate that is necessary to mitigate the worst possible scenarios of climate change (5). However, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has opposed Hansen's criticisms of COP21, and is adamant that the deal will auger in a global replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources (6). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it